Could the loss of House Trump actually help in 2020?

President Trump spoke on Saturday in Belgrade, Mont, during an election rally at Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport. (Janie Osborne / AP)

Aaron Blake

Chief political reporter writing for The Fix

4th of November at 7:30

We are now three days after the 2018 election – a vote that Republicans seem likely to lose. The funny thing is that President Trump agrees. His late strategy seems to be the motivation of the base for important Senate races of the Red State. He focuses on it, though this rhetoric in the vulnerable chamber, the house, seems less helpful and possibly even harmful.

"It could happen," Trump said Friday to lose over the house. "And you know what you are doing? My whole life, do you know what I say? "Do not worry, I'll just find out." Does this make sense? I am going to find that out."

An election analyst could say he is closing the house.

A conspiracy theorist could say that he actually has an advantage – at least personally – if he loses the house.

There are very obvious disadvantages for Republicans who lose the house to Trump. Above all, among them is that the Democrats could use their new summons to investigate his government. You could even get the tax returns that Trump is clearly not going to see from us and show what the New York Times calls fraudulent tax systems.

He would also lose the ability to pass laws without democratic votes, an attitude that gave him a signing of the tax cut and at least a shot at other victories – an opportunity that could disappear once the Democrats in the Congressional half control the agenda.

But if you look at it only from the perspective of Trump's self-interest, especially when it comes to re-election in 2020, it is imperative that a democratic house could be a good thing for the president.

The first reason is that voters seem to like a split government. Of the last six presidents to be re-elected since the Second World War, only one had full control of Congress – George W. Bush in 2004. In 1996, 1992, 1988, 1980, 1972, 1968, and 1956, one party controlled the entire Congress. but the voters chose the other party for the White House.

The second is that Trump gives a boogeyman – or rather a boogeywoman. It is one thing to resist House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (California) by being warned that she might become a spokeswoman. it's another thing if she's a spokeswoman. If the Democrats win the house, Trump will have a ready-made foil for his re-election campaign for 2020, even if his Democratic opponent is not such a lightning rod.

Trump could also hold the Democratic House responsible for his continued failure to fulfill his many, many promises. (He has, to some extent, already done so, though the Democrats have no control over a branch of the government.) Trump has made some promises, but important and far-fetched like the Border Wall (not to mention Mexico being paid for it). ) It remains unlikely, even if the Republicans retain control of the House and the Senate. If you are at a standstill, you might as well blame someone who is not in your own group.

That's all speculative, yes. It is also likely that Trump is fighting so much for Senate candidates because he and the people around him realize that he is much better as a basic motivator than a winner of swing voters. As President, fighting in one of 35 Senate races, you'll get more than in one of the 435 home races.

But it is also true that Trump's closing message for the rescue of the house is much more questionable, and he does not seem to care much about it, even if it was supposed to be a major blow to his agenda. This is also a president who has generally cared for himself rather than his recently adopted political party, and it is not unreasonable to ask if he is really interested in the fate of this party – especially if his setback is his personal gain could.